Talk:Unguarded (Amy Grant album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Christian music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:D cover Unguarded.jpg

Image:D cover Unguarded.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Unguarded.jpg

Image:Unguarded.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair use rationale was added today Antmusic 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Everywhere I Go.ogg

Image:Everywhere I Go.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Find A Way.ogg

The image Image:Find A Way.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unguarded. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090202112516/http://www.sparrowrecords.com:80/news/news_detail_page.aspx?id=527739&tid=227 to http://www.sparrowrecords.com/news/news_detail_page.aspx?id=527739&tid=227

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved.(non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 02:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unguarded (Amy Grant album) → Unguarded – This RM is partially to solve a dispute at Unguarded (a dab page). Walter Görlitz keeps adding {{only-two-dabs}} to Unguarded because he feels that the Amy Grant album is the primary topic. I think he has a point, because the Amy Grant album has charted at multiple places, including a couple chart-toppers. The only chart that the Rae Morris album shows is #9 on OCC's UK Albums chart. Hopefully we can get a solution since this is the last entry in the {{only-two-dabs}} backlog. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC) -- Relisted Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the only two dabs thing shouldn't be added because there's already a third topic in the song. Plus the Chris Herren drugs documentary. No evidence that Amy Grant is the only meaning of such a common word. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- that's a red herring as the third topic were added earlier today. I'm fine with not having it there or having the page moved now that the dab has been filled-out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Well given that page views are almost exactly equal between the two albums, and given WP:NCM might as well withdraw the RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the primary topic. SSTflyer 07:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's still a WP:TWODABS situation as there are no other articles or substantial coverage of any other topics of this name. Between the two, the Amy Grant album has consistently had nearly twice the page views even after being moved to the disambiguated title.[1] This is even more telling considering it's now 31 years old whereas the Rae Morris album just came out last year. Naturally, it also dominates on Google Books ([2] vs. [3]). Additionally, as the album was moved recently without discussion, a "no consensus" move needs to return it to the stable name Unguarded per the WP:RMCI (the dab page can probably stay, at Unguarded (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Amy Grant album has gotten attention because of this RM. Isn't it misleading? George Ho (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's consistently received more page views than the other since it was moved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - no evidence whatsoever that the Amy Grant album is primary. When Googling, the top results are for the film. And the first Wikipedia entry I see in the Google results is the Rae album. Page views are equal, as pointed above. Dab page is best. — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page views count is thrown off a bit as the Grant album was moved 2 months ago, but even since then it's consistently had far more page than the other, much more recent album.[4]--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Amy Grant became well known with Baby Baby (Amy Grant song). The album itself is not as popular as that one or the album carrying it. It is not more significant than the recent album. It wasn't more popular than the recent one before the disambiguation. Wait for one year or two... George Ho (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as none of the above supports have provided substantial evidence so say the Amy Grant album's the PRIMARYTOPIC, As she's not the Primarytopic I don't believe it hsould be moved. –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fair use rationale for File:Unguarded.jpg

File:Unguarded.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC); [Note: Template striken out by Marchjuly per the following discussion. -- 08:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)][reply]

This file is being used twice in the same article: in the main infobox and in the "Cover" section. Whether both uses are needed is questionable per WP:NFCC#3a, but a separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use. There is a rationale provided for the main infobox use, but not the second use and the file can be removed per WP:NFCCE if a second non-free rationale specific to that use is not provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: They are two separate files: infobox uses file:Unguarded.jpg while the gallery uses file:Unguarded_D.jpg and each has a FUR for its designated purpose. I have added a second to the original. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Thank you for pointing that out. Even so, if they are essentially the same album cover with no real discernible differences, then there's really no need for two files. The rationale you added for the infobox file basically appears to be the same as one for the infobox use, but the second use is definitely not being used "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" and is quite different from the main infobox use of primary identification. Just adding the same rationale is not really sufficient per WP:JUSTONE if it doesn't actually explain how the file is being used in accordance with WP:NFCC#10c.

FWIW, the rationales provided for the W, O,R, and D files are also basically the same as the one provided for the main infobox file; so, these also have the same problem in that they don't actually reflect how the files are being used in the article. Since there's no sourced critical commentary supporting the releases with different covers, the justification for their non-free use per WP:NFC#CS is pretty thin. In addition, without any sources to support the content in that section, it can be removed as WP:UNSOURCED or WP:OR, which means the seciton would just become a gallery of non-free album covers which isn't really allowed per WP:NFG or even WP:NFC#cite_note-3.

FWIW, I did search to see if I could find anything written in reliable sources about these different covers, but came up empty. I found pictures on Amazon and comments in online forums, etc., but nothing in the type of publication which might be considered a RS by Wikipedia. There's are some sources cited in the article, but none of these specifically mention the different covers. Ideally, the best reliable source would be one that discuss this and possibly shows all four covers. Without such a source, I think it would be pretty hard to establish a consensus for this type of non-free use at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's no need to ping me. This article is on my watchlist. Second, I recognize that there is not much of a discussion about the use of the images, but it is present. And the infobox image is the primary identification. I have had serious problems with the copyright cabal and this situation is not going to endear you any more. I don't care if the duplicate image is removed from the gallery, but you're wrong to have claimed that that there is no FUR for the image used in the infobox. I am making a local copy and will upload another if it's incorrectly deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you as a courtesy because you pinged me; however, no offense was intended. I also have the files and the article on my watchlist as well; so, we both now understand that neither of use needs to be pinged anymore.

I posted that the file in question had a non-free use rationale for the main infobox, but that it didn't have one for the second use; so, the second use could've been removed per WP:NFCCE if one wasn't provided for it. However, I missed that there were actually two files uploaded: one for the infobox and one for W-O-R-D cover section. I clicked on both files, but missed the difference in names which was my oversight; I wasn't suggesting that the file should be removed from the main infobox or deleted altogether.

Even still, the rationales for each file are (were?) basically the same, so having different file names doesn't really justify the need for two separate non-free files of basically the same album cover using basically the same non-free use rationale. A non-free file can be used more than once; it just needs a separate specific non-free use rationale specific for each use. Anyway, after you pointed my error out, I removed the {{di-missing some article links}} I added to that file's page here, and have also stricken out the template I added above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]